Oliver Stone is a highly entertaining director who, while I can't always accept or deny the legitimacy of the points his films make (i.e., JFK), always provokes me to thought and piques my interest at the audaciousness of his ideas. The film W. does itself display creative ability of this seasoned feature film director, but it also lacks anything new to say about President George W. Bush that pop culture has not stated over and over and over again.

As a film, this production has much to be admired. The casting itself is absolutely brilliant. Burstyn, Brolin, Jones, Wright, Cromwell—all nail every appearance and convince us in each performance. Dreyfuss could easily sweep the Oscar for his portrayal of Vice President Dick Cheney. Considering performances and technical achievement, this film is firing on all cylinders.

The content is another matter entirely. If you already agree with the over-traveled, beaten path that pop culture has incessantly trodden since day one of George W. Bush's presidency, then you will find this movie highly recreational. But in light of how positively reinforced one might feel, it is plainly obvious this film says nothing new, and, therefore, lacks the real importance as a film that an artist would hopefully really want in their body of work. Instead, this movie is no more than pop culture feeding itself, grabbing onto its most prized opinion and masturbating with it for all to watch.

The most redeeming aspect of the entire movie is seeing someone repent of alcoholism. (Whether or not George W. Bush drank that much is another matter entirely, but given Stone's ability to take one seed of truth and plant acres for a harvest of ideas helps keep things in perspective).

Furthermore, while Brolin's performance and characterization is commendable in and of itself, Stone has left us with no more than a caricature of the leader of the United States —something better suited and more appreciated on Saturday Night Live. As with any political leader, there will be people who like them and people who do not like Bush. This film, however, plays to only one audience. Better films are built on more equality of opposing ideas, but it is painfully clear Stone was not interested in that. While he said it was a fair portrayal, what he produced proves otherwise.

Portraying only one opinion, however, is no reason to be upset or to throw the whole production out as worthless.

But, there was at least one foul committed during Stone's entertaining. He goes too far, I believe, in the scene where President George W. Bush visits wounded soldiers in the hospital. I have seen the President cry from a podium during a speech, lamenting over lost lives in this war. To display him as uncaring or in any way unsympathetic to the loss of life others have faced is an egregious misconception and dishonors the real humanity of the leader of our nation. Stone goes over the line—and I am blowing the whistle.

As much as the film wants to say, it also trips over itself while trying to enforce its arguments. In portraying the conflict that President George H.W. Bush must have felt as the father of W., there is inconsistency in the depiction in this film. In one scene, George Senior is ridiculing his son, and (albeit years later, but only minutes in this movie) he is inviting his son, George Junior, to assist him in his presidential campaign. There are more examples of this, but suffice to say it proved a weakness to the arguments Stone seems so desperately trying to make.

If you agree with the pop culture addiction to hate President George W. Bush, then you will be in good company seeing this film. If you don't, you may just be offended. But one thing is for sure, you will not find any middle ground where thoughtful discussion or new ideas may ensue.